Scottish Executive

Further and Higher Education

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2O-236 by Mr Jim Wallace on 19 June 2003, how the £2 million to encourage articulation between the further and higher education sectors will be used.

Mr Jim Wallace: The £2 million which the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) have allocated for 2003-04 to encourage articulation between further education and higher education has a number of aims. It will help institutions themselves to improve articulation arrangements, help to address problems that students face during transition between the sectors and will aim to enhance and develop links between the sectors.

  Decisions around the actual allocation of resources will be informed by early results of a study into mapping, tracking and bridging between further and higher education. This is being undertaken on behalf of SHEFC by the Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access and the Wider Access Regional Forums.

Health

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when it will issue its proposed new guidance in relation to the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry.

Malcolm Chisholm: The guidance is expected to be published in the early autumn.

Higher Education

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to improve the situation of contract research staff in higher education institutions.

Mr Jim Wallace: The Scottish Executive commissioned a report on this issue from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) which was published on 10 July 2003. As the report indicates, there have recently been a number of positive developments in this area, including new legislation, which should serve to improve the position of contract research staff.

  In addition, the Scottish Executive has promoted the need for good practice in this area both in its A Framework for Higher Education in Scotland, published on 20 March 2003, and in its 2003-04 guidance to SHEFC which asked the funding council to work with key stakeholders to ensure positive action is taken.

Housing

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made on proposals to allow registered social landlords to self-certify houses in multiple occupation and when it will report on these proposals.

Mrs Mary Mulligan: A working group is currently being convened to consider a number of issues arising from the review of mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), including the development of a self-certification framework for publicly accountable HMO landlords. The group is expected to start work in September.

Maternity Services

Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive when it will reach a decision on the option submitted by Argyll and Clyde NHS Board, if the option of centralising maternity services is agreed on 29 July 2003 at the meeting at Dykebar Hospital.

Malcolm Chisholm: I refer the member to answer given to the question S2W-1696 on 26 August 2003. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search .

Renewable Energy

Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has for the national co-ordination of the building of wind farms.

Lewis Macdonald: The guiding principle to our policies on promoting renewable energy developments is that the land use planning system should play its full part in the process. Within this framework, positive provision is being made for wind farm developments whilst ensuring that designated areas, species habitats and the historic heritage are protected from inappropriate development and that any disturbance to local communities is minimised.

  In our view this provides a robust framework, which ensures that our renewable resources can be fully exploited towards meeting our climate change obligations whilst safeguarding sites of particular local, national and international value.

  We are not persuaded that national co-ordination of the process would contribute to these objectives.

Renewable Energy

Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made on setting a minimum tariff per megawatt per year that local communities will receive from the developers of wind farms.

Lewis Macdonald: The Executive supports the principle of community benefit as ex-gratia payments but we believe these are best handled by community representatives. We therefore have no plans to set a tariff for wind farm developments.

Schools

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether funds will be made available to ensure that every secondary school is equipped with a swimming pool, following the statement by the First Minister on 7 August 2003 in news release SEfm145/2003 on the provision of opportunities for everyone, regardless of their age, or ability, to participate in sport.

Peter Peacock: The news release concerned lottery funding for sports facilities in general. The Executive will continue to work with  sportscotland to complete a programme of new and refurbished sports facilities, including swimming pools, across the country.

  Decisions on the location of swimming pools in secondary schools are matters for education authorities in light of facilities available within the local community.

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con): To ask the Presiding Officer what powers the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) has to amend, withhold or remove a staff member’s entitlement to pension benefits from Civil Service pension funds; to which pension funds these powers apply, and in what circumstances such powers would be exercised.

Mr George Reid: The SPCB does not have any powers to amend, withhold or remove a staff member’s entitlement to pension benefits from Civil Service pension funds as these powers are held by the Minister for Civil Service.

  All staff of the SPCB are eligible for membership of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. Under the rules of the scheme the Minister for the Civil Service has the power to withhold pension benefits in prescribed circumstances. These circumstances include:

  conviction of treason; or

  conviction of an offence under the Official Secrets Act resulting in a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or

  conviction of an employment-related offence which is certified by a Minister of the Crown either to have been gravely injurious to the state or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service.

  The rules also provide the member of staff with the right of appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board. Forfeiture of pension benefits is not undertaken lightly and there have been just seven cases since the pension scheme was introduced in 1972. In the majority of these cases only a proportion of pension benefits were withheld.

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S2W-1566, S2W-1567, S2W-1568 and S2W-1569 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 6 August 2003, whether the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) has any plans to compensate any staff whose personal pension payments and arrangements have been adversely affected by the decision to withdraw from the direct debit scheme and what the reasons are for its position on this matter.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The SPCB has no plans to compensate any staff whose personal pension payments and arrangements have been adversely affected by the decision to change the method of payment and withdraw from the direct debit scheme. The SPCB has complied with its obligations under the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and ensured that all contributions were and are paid over to pension providers within the set deadlines.

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S2W-1566, S2W-1567, S2W-1568 and S2W-1569 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 6 August 2003, whether the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) has any plans to apologise formally to any staff, whose personal pension payments and arrangements have been adversely affected by the decision to withdraw from the direct debit scheme, in respect of the decision on this matter and any lack of consultation.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The SPCB empathises with staff who have encountered problems. However, since it has complied with its obligations under Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority and it has no influence on when the pension providers apply the contributions to the pension policies, the SPCB has no plans to apologise formally for the withdrawal of the direct debit scheme.

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S2W-1566, S2W-1567, S2W-1568 and S2W-1569 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 6 August 2003, which pension providers (a) responded and (b) did not respond to the correspondence sent to them relating to the ending of the direct debit scheme.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The table below lists the pension providers who responded to our correspondence within three months of receipt and those who did not.

  


Did respond within the first three months 
  

Did not respond within the first three months 
  



Abbey Life 
  

Axa Assurance 
  



Abbey National 
  

CGU 
  



Allied Dunbar 
  

Equitable Life 
  



CIS 
  

Halifax Life/Bank of Scotland Investments 
  



Friends Provident 
  

Lloyds TSB 
  



Guardian Royal Exchange 
  

National Westminster 
  



Perpetual Investments 
  

Prudential 
  



Marks & Spencer 
  

Scottish Amicable 
  



Scottish Life 
  






Scottish Mutual 
  






Skandia Life 
  






AMP NPI 
  






Legal & General 
  






Scottish Equitable 
  






Scottish Widows 
  






Standard Life 
  






Clerical Medical 
  






Colonial Life 
  






Sun Life of Canada

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S2W-1566, S2W-1567, S2W-1568 and S2W-1569 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 6 August 2003, what the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) considers its responsibility to be in relation to the communication of matters, and decisions that it takes, directly affecting staff employed by MSPs and what methods of communication are in place to ensure that such staff are appropriately informed of, and consulted on, such matters and decisions.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The SPCB has various ways of keeping staff employed by MSPs informed of issues that may directly affect them, for example: through the use of e-mail; notices; telephone; letters etc. In this case, however, because these procedural changes were made in order to comply with legislation, it was not considered necessary to consult with MSPs staff.

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S2W-1566, S2W-1567, S2W-1568 and S2W-1569 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 6 August 2003, what steps the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) is taking to address the issues relating to its inability to meet its obligations in relation to compliance with Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) regulations in order that the reintroduction of the direct debit scheme can be considered.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The only way that the SPCB can ensure that it complies fully with the regulations of OPRA is for it to have complete control over the payments made to the pension providers. Since the direct debit system gives the pension provider full control of when and how much is collected, the SPCB will not be re-introducing the direct debit system.

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S2W-1566, S2W-1567, S2W-1568 and S2W-1569 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 6 August 2003, how many staff have been affected by the decision of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) to withdraw from the direct debit scheme.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): Following the decision to withdraw from the direct debit scheme there are problems currently outstanding which affect eight members of staff all with the one provider. However, the SPCB has now agreed a way forward with the provider to resolve these.

Parliamentary Pension Scheme

Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD): To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S2W-1566, S2W-1567, S2W-1568 and S2W-1569 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 6 August 2003, what steps the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) took to inform MSPs, as employers, of the impact its decision to withdraw from the direct debit scheme would have on their staffs’ pension payments.

Mr Duncan McNeil (on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): As none of the providers highlighted any specific problems prior to the withdrawal of the direct debit scheme and no problems were envisaged, the SPCB felt that it was not necessary to inform individual MSPs of the change in the method of payment.